Despite recent advances in methods for the detection of viruses using molecular methods, the detection and identification of these organisms in cell culture remains the “gold standard” by which most viral diseases are definitively diagnosed, and against which newer methods are compared (See e.g., Wiedbrauk and Johnston, Manual of Clinical Virology, Raven Press, Inc., New York, N.Y. [1993], pp. 1-17). Cell cultures are also used for the detection and identification of other intracellular parasites, especially obligate intracellular parasites such as Chlamydia and Rickettsia .
There are two general types of cell culture methods used for virus identification. The first method uses identification of virus-induced cytopathic effect (CPE) as an endpoint for virus detection. The second method utilizes molecular methods to identify the presence of virus before CPE is evident in the infected cultures. Both methods utilize cell cultures, which may present problems for small laboratories with limited expertise in cell culturing methods, space, funding, equipment, and supplies. Depending upon the cells used, cell cultures can be difficult to maintain and often require the efforts of skilled laboratorians. In addition, cell cultures require equipment such as cell culture hoods, inverted microscopes (for observation of cells), incubators with CO2 lines, and other equipment not readily available in many laboratories.
CPE-Based Tests
CPE-based tests often require long incubation times, as virus-induced CPE only becomes evident after multiple rounds of viral replication and spread of virus to neighboring cells (i.e., the cells are “permissive” for viral infection). Virus spread results in the destruction of the cells surrounding the cell originally infected. CPE-based tests have been traditionally conducted in tubes or flasks containing a single cell type that is adhered or anchored to the sides and/or bottom of the tube or flask. As the virus must infect a cell, replicate, and spread to neighboring cells in which the process is repeated, results can be delayed for at least 28 days. Indeed, results are often not available for 7-28 days after inoculation of the cell culture with the virus suspension (See e.g., Leland, Clinical Virology, W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia [1996], pp. 60-65). The time necessary to establish visible CPE is dependent upon the rate of viral replication, which can vary among cell types and viruses. Thus, the amount of time needed to detect virus in a sample can greatly vary.
Pre-CPE Tests
In contrast to CPE-based tests, pre-CPE tests require only entry of the virus into a susceptible host cell and detectable expression of at least one early virus-specific antigen or nucleic acid. Detection of the virus-specific analyte or other indicator is accomplished by a number of methods (e.g., labeled antibodies, the polymerase chain reaction [PCR], or the use of other reporters, such as the ELVIS™ system). Expression of early viral genes has been shown to be very rapid in many virus-host cell systems in vitro. Thus, use of pre-CPE based virus tests significantly reduces the time required to detect and identify viruses in clinical specimens.
Pre-CPE detection of virus is often accomplished by using monolayers of adherent cells grown on 12 mm round coverslips contained in 1 dram shell vials (i.e., the “shell vial” method or technique). The shell vial technique uses centrifugation of the specimen to force viral introduction into cells and enhance viral isolation. These vials are prepared by dispensing cells into sterile shell vials containing coverslips. The vials are incubated in an upright position until the cells form a monolayer on the coverslip, For shell vial inoculation, the culture medium is decanted from the vial, processed sample (i.e., the clinical specimen) is added to the cell monolayer, and the vial is centrifuged at low speed, often for one hour. After centrifugation, fresh culture medium is added to each vial. The vials are then incubated for the desired period of time. At the end of the incubation period, the coverslips are stained using an antigen detection method (e.g., immunofluorescence) or the cells are evaluated via molecular diagnostic techniques.
In addition to viruses, shell vials are also commonly used for the detection and identification of Chlamydia, as other methods available for the detection and identification of these organisms are quite cumbersome, as well as time and reagent-consuming (See e.g., Wiedbrauk and Johnston, supra, pp. 64-76).
The major advantage of these pre-CPE testing methods is that rapid test results are often possible. One major disadvantage to pre-CPE testing of shell vial cultures is that this type of test is feasible and cost-effective only if one or a few viral agents are sought for identification, and if a high proportion of specimens are likely to be positive. For a review see for instance, Schmidt and Emmons (eds.), “General Principles of Laboratory Diagnostic Methods for Viral, Rickettsial and Chlamydial Infections,” Diagnostic Procedures for Viral, Rickettsial and Chlamydial Infections, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., [1989], p. 4 .
Clinical Specimens
For example, the presence of skin vesicles in the genital area of a patient is highly suspicious for infection by herpes simplex virus (HSV). Typically, the physician will obtain a specimen from the affected region (i.e., a vesicle) and order a CPE or a pre-CPE virus test on a single, HSV-susceptible cell line. These cell lines are often supplied in tubes, shell vials or multi-well plates (e.g., microtiter plates). After inoculation of the cell line and an appropriate incubation time, confirmation of the presence of HSV in the sample can be accomplished using one or more of the many analytical methods (e.g., immunofluorescence, immunoperoxidase, nucleic acid probes, or substrates for virus-induced reporter genes).
For detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV), shell vials containing cells from a single cell line (e.g., human fibroblast cell lines, such as lung [MRC-5 cells] or foreskin [HFF] cells) are often used. The cells are grown to confluency on the coverslip within the vial, the sample is added to the vial, the vial is incubated for 24-48 hours or longer, and an immunofluorescent method is used to detect expression of CMV early antigen.
Accurate differential diagnosis is significantly more difficult in virus diseases due to respiratory, gastrointestinal, genital, or parenteral routes of transmission because many pathogenic viruses are capable of eliciting similar symptoms or the infection is sub-clinical (i.e., the signs and symptoms are not readily apparent).
Of the respiratory viruses, rhinoviruses and corona viruses are responsible for a large proportion of upper respiratory infections. Once these viruses reach the upper respiratory mucosa, they attach to and infect epithelial cells. Typically, these infections last only a few days and self-resolve. Other respiratory viruses, such as the influenzas, parainfluenzas, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and various adenoviruses attach to and infect ciliated, columnar epithelial cells. The virus-infected cells lyse, resulting in the release of enzymes and activate complement, resulting in a local mononuclear inflammatory response. Normal airway clearance mechanisms fail because of the failure of the epithelial cells to function normally. These cells may also slough off. Cell debris from dead and dying cells often obstructs airways, and the host becomes very susceptible to secondary bacterial infection and/or superinfection. All of these viruses may progress to lower respiratory involvement and pneumonia. After replication in the respiratory epithelial cells, adenovirus may travel via the blood to the lymphoid tissues in all areas of the body, causing systemic infection or disease.
Standard clinical virology practice is to inoculate multiple tubes of cell cultures with the specimen (e.g., throat swab, nasopharyngeal swab, or sputum specimen) as the tropism of each type of virus for specific cell types is often very narrow (i.e., only one type of virus may grow optimally on a single cell type). This narrow tropism of virus for a limited number of cell types creates at least two major practical problems for both CPE and pre-CPE virus testing.
First, primary monkey kidney cells are currently the cell line of choice for isolation of influenza viruses. The manufacture of these cells requires the quarantine of source animals for long periods prior to sacrifice and cell culture preparation. This quarantine period is used to monitor the animals for good health and allows time to test the animals for infection by endogenous simian viruses such as foamy virus, SV5, and SV40. The quarantine period also greatly reduces, but does not eliminate, the possibility that the monkeys are infected with Monkey B Virus, a herpesvirus that is highly fatal to humans. In addition, there are other problems related to the use of monkeys for the production of primary cell cultures, including the reduction in the stock of suitable animals due to importation concerns and monkey population considerations.
Second, additional continuous cell lines are required in order to detect respiratory viruses other than influenza virus. Thus, multiple cell lines are used in order to diagnose the viral infection/disease of each patient. The need for multiple units of individual cell lines is compounded in methods using pre-CPE tests for detection and identification of respiratory viruses. Pre-CPE testing for respiratory viruses requires the expenditure of significant labor in handling coverslips, the added expense of molecular reagents used with multiple cell lines for both positive and negative specimens, and the significant labor associated with microscopically reading each of the multiple cell lines inoculated in the panel of cell lines.
However, despite these drawbacks, shell vial technology using single cell types in multiple units (tubes, shell vials, etc.), is still currently used to detect respiratory viruses, as it is a proven method. For example, detection of RSV in 16 hours using shell vials containing only HEp-2 cells yielded more positives than antigen detection methods applied directly to the clinical specimen, and as many positives as conventional cell cultures (Smith et al., J. Clin. Microbiol., 29:463-465 [1991]). Isolation. of other respiratory viruses has also been possible with shell vial cultures containing a monolayer of a single cell type. For example, using vials of primary monkey kidney cells and A549 cells incubated for 40 hours, 83% of adenoviruses, 94% of influenza B, and 80% of parainfluenza virus types 1, 2, and 3 were identified (Rabalais et al., J. Clin. Microbiol., 30:1505-1508 [1992]). In another report, 50% of adenoviruses, 94% of influenza A viruses, 100% of influenza B viruses, and 100% of parainfluenza viruses, in shell vials of primary rhesus monkey kidney cells, and 92% of RSV in shell vials of HEp-2 cells incubated for 2-4 days (See e.g., Olsen et al., J. Clin. Microbiol., 31:422-425 [1993]; and Leland, Clinical Virology, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pa. [1996], at p. 85-86).
Although these methods provide relatively rapid results (i.e., as opposed to the long incubation periods often necessary for CPE tests), there remains a need in clinical and reference virology laboratories for cell culture methods and compositions for the reliable detection and identification of viruses in a single, easy-to-manipulate unit. Preferred methods and compositions provide a means for rapid viral detection and identification in a cost-effective manner, while also providing the sensitivity of a diagnostic assay system.